Williams v. Rubin

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Williams v. Rubin

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________

No. 95-60267 Summary Calendar _______________

BARBARA L. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

ROBERT E. RUBIN, Secretary of the Treasury,

and

FRANK GILBERT,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (1:93-CV-458) _________________________

December 1, 1995

Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Barbara Williams, who is black, worked for the Internal Rev-

enue Service and sued for race and sex discrimination, later

dropping her sex-based claim. She contends a white woman was

* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well- settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published. given a promotion over her because of race.

The district court conducted a full bench trial and found no

discrimination. We find no error in this decision. At trial,

Williams was the only witness for the plaintiff. She admitted

she knew of no reason she had not received the promotion except

that she had received a lower evaluation than did the woman who

was promoted. There was absolutely no evidence of racial animus

or motive.

Williams claims the district judge should have recused

because of a statement he made to the effect that he is audited

annually by the Internal Revenue Service and is friends with it.

Williams raised this for the first time on appeal, so she has

waived the issue. Moreover, the transcript does not contain the

statement that Williams claims was made, and the court reporter

has confirmed that the record is accurate in this regard.

Williams claims the district court improperly excluded a

statement by Williams’s manager. There is no showing that the

statement even referred to Williams, directly or indirectly.

Moreover, the statement does not refer in any way to race. The

district court was within its discretion in excluding the

statement.

AFFIRMED.

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished